The karmic consequences of keeping pets

[reiun]

In Zen Buddhist Mu koan work, a dog helps 'point the way'.

and a cat is cut in half.......

Not in Mu koan.

Not in real life either, just a story, like so, so many others in religious mythology.

[Cinnabar]

Seems most of the work is in understanding circumstances and figuring out how to work with them.

That said it’s an indeterminate question…

[Aemilius]

Ven. Dhammika limits himself to Pali sources as far as I know, whereas the Mahayana canon does in fact have something to say on this matter. Two sets of bodhisattva precepts preserved in the Chinese canon, the Upasaka Precept Sutra and Brahma Net Sutra have a minor precept against keeping animals. The former against raising cats and foxes, the latter against raising cats, dogs, foxes, pigs, and other such animals.

Going back to the OP, generally lamrim teachings often contain examples of people being reborn in unfortunate states due to their habitual attachments to certain things, usually objects. So we get stories of people attached to begging bowls or gold and the like being born as snakes guarding those objects, or about a woman who was so attached to her body that she was reborn as a snake who lived in her own former life's corpse. There is also the notion of the final thought at death having a strong influence on the next rebirth. Hence, if you die with strong thoughts about your pet, you could very well be reborn in the animal realm, something like the same species as your pet or perhaps even a parasite living in/on your pet's body.

Which precepts do you mean in the Brahma nets sutra? I know that there is: "[a Bodhisattva shall not] work as a trainer of falcons or hunting dogs," in precept number 29.
And "In addition, he should not raise cats, dogs, foxes, pigs, and other such animals. If he intentionally does such things, he commits a secondary offense", in precept number 32.

http://buddhism.org/Sutras/DHARMA/Tripi ... Net.htm#29

These precepts are very much open to interpretation.

The Brahma Net Sutra does not have a minor precept against keeping animals. What chapter of the Upasaka Precept Sutra says "serious karmic consequences in keeping pets"? I don't see that anywhere in there.

There are clearly precepts against keeping pets in various traditions, for monks. Specifically for monks. It's already well known that monks are generally not supposed to keep pets. The person asking is not a monk and the question and statments are not limited to monks and monks precepts is not what I was asking about.

There is still nothing that says "serious karmic consequences in keeping pets" and still nothing that singles out pets as binding you in samsara any more than any other thing.

Inviting animals live with you and taking care of them is not the same as being an animal breeder or seller, in other words, to “raise” them.

The Upasaka Precept Sutra is, as the title suggests, a bodhisattva precept system specifically for laypeople. It is also a living tradition transmitted by a minority of Chinese temples. The 15th minor precept extracted from Chapter 14 of the Sutra reads:

【輕15】蓄貓狸戒第十五
若優婆塞(夷)受持戒已。若蓄貓狸。是優婆塞(夷)得失意罪。不起墮落。不淨有作。

BTTS translation pg. 63: (15TH MINOR) THE PRECEPT AGAINST KEEPING CATS AND OTHER PREDATORY ANIMALS
If a Upasaka/Upasika who has received and should be upholding this Precept keeps cats or other predatory animals, he/she thereby commits an offense through negligence. Failure to repent and reform will lead to a fall, caused by such impure behavior.

BDK translation pg. 94: If an upasaka has taken the precepts and raises cats or foxes, he commits a grave offense. He cannot rise from degradation, nor
can he purify his actions.

The brief commentarial remark in the BTTS translation states:

Principle: Keeping cats or other predatory animals, including species of carnivorous fish, is equivalent to killing or teaching others to kill.

The 16th precept is against not giving away wild and domestic animals you had been raising, and the 27th against raising silkworms. The commentary indicates that these precepts are specifically against raising animals for profit, so the 15th precept would cover animals kept for other reasons, such as pets or pest control.

I don't think I need to provide sources that state violating a bodhisattva precept intentionally carries serious karmic consequences. However, the consequences of having animals would probably only be so serious for the precept holders.

As for the Brahma Net Sutra, I am indeed referring to minor precept 32:

【第三十二 損害眾生戒】

若佛子，不得販賣刀杖、弓箭，畜輕秤、小斗。因官形勢，取人財物。害心繫縛，破壞成功。長養貓、貍、豬、狗。若故養者，犯輕垢罪。

Sutra Translation Committee of the United States and Canada translation: 32. On Harming Sentient Beings
A disciple of the Buddha must not sell knives, clubs, bows, arrows, other life-taking devices, nor keep altered scales or measuring devices. He should not abuse his governmental position to confiscate people's possessions, nor should he, with malice at heart, restrain or imprison others or sabotage their success. In addition, he should not raise cats, dogs, foxes, pigs and other such animals. If he intentionally does such things, he commits a secondary offence.

BDK translation pg. 61: 32. Do Not Deviously Confiscate Others’ Property
My disciples, you should not build up a store of swords, staves, or bows and arrows. You should not buy and sell goods using rigged scales and other means of measurement; you should not confiscate people’s property using official authority, or maliciously tie people up, or sabotage their accomplishments. You should not raise cats, badgers, swine, or dogs. To intentionally do so constitutes a minor transgression of the precepts.

A note from the first translation reads:

A Bodhisattva should not raise cats, dogs. There are several reasons for this. One is compassion: cats eat other sentient beings, while pigs are raised to be eaten themselves as foes for their skins or for medicinal purposes. Secondly, raising domestic animals gives rise to feelings of attachment, which is precisely what the cultivator seeks to avoid. It also takes time and effort, which would better be devoted to the "great matter of Birth and Death." Yet, there are exceptions to this rule: to give temporary shelter to a starving cat in the middle of winter is clearly the right thing for a Bodhisattva disciple to do. Note: Under this precept, to keep a dog to watch over one's property is not considered an offence for a lay Bodhisattva.

We should not be ignorant of the nature of biological life on planet earth, that is that most species try to reproduce limitlessly, their projected limitless growth is hindered by natural factors like predators and illnesses. Thus predators are useful and necessary in the life as it exist on this planet.

In modern city life people are cut off from nature, people's pets can be a link to the vastness of life outside of the cities, thus they can serve a positive function in over all picture of life.

[frankie]

It’s a karmic indicator that more people donate to animal shelters than battered women shelters.
Judging from a conversation I had today.

However, I am not sure that in all instances someone should prioritize donating to a DV shelter above an animal shelter, it really depends on the person, situation, etc.

Agreed Johnny. Because it occurred to me that as ghastly as it is to be experiencing the circumstances around needing such shelters (also a very under-reported prevalence of men in such situations, btw), animals have the added disadvantage of being that much more helpless and almost devoid of the facility to eventually lift themselves out of such circumstances. So one could, therefore, mount an argument to say their need is even greater for human assistance.

A personal little story : nearly 3 years ago the greatest friend and love I have ever known died, a dog. I have never felt loss and grief like it. Knowing the attachment involved in all of it, though, I have been resisting getting another one. Then, a year ago a stray little cat kept coming to my house and has basically adopted me now. Its black and white colouring is exactly the same as was my little hero's. In addition, the vet says his age is about 3 years! Now and again he will show me some 'love' but as a general rule treats me with disdain and as his butler. It is almost as if he's teaching me more about companionship/relationship without attachment. In truth, my experience has taught me more than a library full of sutras, commentaries or bald guys in dresses.

[muni]

Dear Dharma friends,
It has been said that there are serious karmic consequences in keeping pets. It has been said that if you see them as family or are otherwise unduly attached to them, they will be reborn as your family members in future lives and therefore further bind you in samsara. Please share your perspectives. Thank you!
Empty Cloud

Empty Cloud, I like not to meet American Stafford dogs, but sweet dogs on my walks with my gentle stray dog. The Stafford, even as well able to be gentle, came often in the news as having killed or injured people and other dogs due to the form of their strong large mouth and genetic material.
But generaly, it isn't bad at all to care for dogs, whatever dogs, as they are called the best friends of humans. ( but not to eat them)

Perhaps even I do not have such dog as family, I will have stafford-consciousness into my family due to my ignorance, my grasping to appearances? Help!

Sigh, this may be putting the teachings into daily practice. And therefore I guess this asks meditation and daily life as being not different.

Anyway everyone should be responsible for friend dog and our surroundings, or don't buy/adopt them. This for the welfare of all. So in that way I see karmic consequences.

[Mordor_Yogi]

If someone is interested in reptiles, but concerned about the karmic consequences of feeding them bugs/worms/etc, you should look into vegetarian reptiles. There are several vegetarian lizards. Many iguanas are vegetarian (but iguana's can be dangerous to own when they get big). Chuckwallas are vegetarian lizards. There may be other vegetarian reptiles as well.

[Josef]

Sorry for the triple post...

[climb-up]

Sorry for the triple post...

[heart]

Sorry for the triple post...

/magnus